What's your Church's teaching on Matthew 16:18 and why?

[GaryTaylor]

“But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church”

I agree that Peter is the keybearer, but I don’t think you and Marduk are far off in that if you look at LivingWordUnity’s post and Marduk’s response to it he is saying that Peter does the hold the power of the keys in a particular way vis a vis the other apostles (that is not low petrine view).

No I actually agree with everything but the divine institution of the Church. If we are to assume brother Marduk is right here…

“It was not given first to Peter. It was given to all the Apostles together when the Church was established.”

Then neither was the Church divinely established on the person/faith in Matthew 16:18. It cannot be both ways. And for sure divinely established in Matthew 16:18 is the historic teaching.

I’m not sure what he is saying as it seems there’s opposing thoughts.

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Low petrine view, I’m saying its a useless term without a complete understanding of a the belief system of an individual on an individual basis.

 

[josie_L]

No I actually agree with everything but the divine institution of the Church. If we are to assume brother Marduk is right here…

“It was not given first to Peter. It was given to all the Apostles together when the Church was established.”

Then neither was the Church divinely established on the person/faith in Matthew 16:18. It cannot be both ways. And for sure divinely established in Matthew 16:18 is the historic teaching.

I’m not sure what he is saying as it seems there’s opposing thoughts.

Low petrine view, I’m saying its a useless term without a complete understanding of a the belief system of an individual on an individual basis.

Ok, I see what you mean, perhaps Marduk needs to give more details concerning this statement in order to rectify any misunderstandings. If I can venture to say that perhaps what Marduk is trying to say is that although Peter received the keys, which he admits to LivingWordUnity is used by Peter in a particular manner, the usage of the keys was not in use until the Church was established. So, Peter could not have used the power of the keys “first” prior to this, hence, Marduk’s comment, i.e., the power of the keys could only be used in tandem with the other apostles or simultaneously with the others when the Church was established). I think this is what Marduk meant, but that being said, i.e., Peter did receive the keys “first” or rather he was the one Jesus had chosen to spiritually hand over the keys (keybearer), thereby signifying something of great import connected to Peter that no other apostle could claim.

God bless!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ok, I see what you mean, perhaps Marduk needs to give more details concerning this statement in order to rectify any misunderstandings. If I can venture to say that perhaps what Marduk is trying to say is that although Peter received the keys, which he admits to LivingWordUnity is used by Peter in a particular manner, the usage of the keys was not in use until the Church was established. So, Peter could not have used the power of the keys “first” prior to this, hence, Marduk’s comment, i.e., the power of the keys could only be used in tandem with the other apostles or simultaneously with the others when the Church was established). I think this is what Marduk meant, but that being said, i.e., Peter did receive the keys “first” or rather he was the one Jesus had chosen to spiritually hand over the keys (keybearer), thereby signifying something of great import connected to Peter that no other apostle could claim.

God bless!

Did you read this?

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

“The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter,”

That’s what I am saying, that like reality of the Bishops exists, this only means he is their servant. Pope Francis I think has that down cold.

Now perhaps as you read on the more absolute view will emerge. Historically that’s a bit difficult.

 

[josie_L]

Did you read this?

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

“The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter,”

Yes, I read the article, in fact, I quoted a portion of it on this very thread. But I do not believe that Marduk is denying this, i.e., I explained what I think he meant by “first”, that being said, I don’t think he necessarily understood what you meant by “first”.

p.s. I assume that by “first” you meant to signify the importance in Christ handing over the keys to Peter rather than the other apostles, thereby conferring some special prerogative on Peter (which I mentioned in my post),

 

[josie_L]

Yes, I read the article, in fact, I quoted a portion of it on this very thread. But I do not believe that Marduk is denying this, i.e., I explained what I think he meant by “first”, that being said, I don’t think he necessarily understood what you meant by “first”.

p.s. I assume that by “first” you meant to signify the importance in Christ handing over the keys to Peter rather than the others, thereby conferring some special prerogative/s on Peter (which I mentioned).

 

[Cathoholic]

Mardukum. You said in post 83:

It also cannot fail to be stated that the Pope holds the keys only as a member of the Church and in communion with his brother bishops in the College. Apart from those conditions, he does not.

I will fail to state that.

I think if anything it is the other way around.

I think since the Pope holds the Keys, his brother bishops in the College, need to be in communion with him. That’s part of what it means to hold the Keys–authority.

That’s why the Church can be ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

That is WHY the Magisterium through the holder of the keys, can teach with such authority.

CCC 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

(bold CCC mine)

 

[mardukm]

Mardukum. You said in post 83:
I will fail to state that.

I think if anything it is the other way around.

It is both.

The rest of your post will be addressed in my responses to brother Gary.

Btw, did you notice that your statements, which are actually far off from Catholic orthodoxy, is coincidentally your 666th post? I’ll take that as a sign.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

It is both.

The rest of your post will be addressed in my responses to brother Gary.

Btw, did you notice that your statements, which are actually far off from Catholic orthodoxy, is coincidentally your 666th post? I’ll take that as a sign.

Blessings,
Marduk

What was your 666th post??

 

[mardukm]

What was your 666th post??

I’m a Senior forum member. I’m too “old” to remember.

 

[josie_L]

I’m a Senior forum member. I’m too “old” to remember.

So how many candles on this before I reached your age?

 

[Cathoholic]

Mardukm. You stated in post 101:

It is both.

Interesting. I enjoy delving into different layers and senses of Church teaching and am open to what you have to say concerning this.

I am sure you will have some interesting quotes, etc. Incidentally, I DO affirm that “the Church” in a sense possesses the Keys (in case that is where you are going), but NOT bishops in opposition to St. Peter and his successors. That was my point. They must be in union with St. Peter (and his successors).

Thanks for your quick response.

You also said:

did you notice that your statements . . . is coincidentally your 666th post?

No I didn’t. I usually don’t pay attention to that sort of thing.

You also said:

your statements, . . . . are actually far off from Catholic orthodoxy

Which one(s)? I assume you do not mean my quote from the Catechism that said that the Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops in UNION with him.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pope Innocent I

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Pope Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

This just goes on

Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

(Pet. Lomb., “Sent.”, IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), is referred to with the early scholastic thinking which underestimated the potestas clavium which is common to “all” priests.

In other word he downplayed the reality and the Cardinals understanding very well could be the reality. I certainly wouldn’t underestimate his thinking. In fact he is mentioned regular on this forum. Good that we present his thinking here also.

A very good argument could proceed from above, historically, biblically and today in reality.

For example Matthew 16:17

God the Father blessed Peter and through Jesus Christ, the Word of God “personally” and on the faith and person of Peter.

Then He explains how Peter is blessed

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Person and Faith of Peter…then.

" I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven"

No-where is this mentioned elsewhere in the Bible…“NO-WHERE” a point never acknowledged. Why is that? It is not repeated in scripture.

This promise grew till after the Day of Pentecost. The idea It seems to have been at this time only promised, not conferred upon Peter doesn’t hold water and for several reasons. That doesn’t fly in the spiritual/mystical realm. This revelation given throughout history is given at the point when it is given, the fact God keeps his promise and the blessing if fulfilled at a later date is in fact consistent with “all” the mystics, visionaries. So too is it consistent here.

In fact everything which occurs biblically from this point only relates to Binding and Loosing.

Matthew 18:18

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

John 20

So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained

That’s what is biblically in exegesis. Its a non existent stretch to suggest other. The Church, the mystical body and the Keys of Heaven which are not earthly keys cannot be separated from the Church, nor does this occur anywhere in scripture. That’s not a reality.

The Church is divinely established on Peter/Faith/Person and he is given the keys, not at some time later but then.

No-where in history does anyone else make claim to these keys. Very much the opposite. The Keys have been representative of Rome throughout history. In the bible and in reality.

The fact that the Bishop of Rome enacts his authority through the magisterium is another reality.

Revelation 3:7
"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

One Church has the Key in Revelation not seven. Those were given to Peter in Matthew which is the new Davidic kingdom

You might suggest that’s not Rome or that’s Revelation. But the point remains by Johns understanding and revelation ONE CHURCH holds the Key.

So the Davidic Keys are given to Peter which works in union with his Bishops thus the magisterium and those in communion with him.



A way to go to show anything which resembles the low petrine view, I don’t see it at all. Fact is I believe its a fairy tale.

In fact I would abandon that argument, its not reality, its non biblical and non historic. Its an illusion of the mind confirmed by other “wrong” but like thinking.

The absolute view would go somewhat as above. And “for certain” its much more plausible than the low view.

Why wouldn’t we believe that, it certainly follows the sequence blessing manifested just as with Peter then Pentecost, its certainly follows historic, early church fathers. reality today and scripture.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cathoholic,

Mardukm. You stated in post 101:

mardukm:

It is both

Interesting. I enjoy delving into different layers and senses of Church teaching and am open to what you have to say concerning this.

I am sure you will have some interesting quotes, etc. Incidentally, I DO affirm that “the Church” in a sense possesses the Keys (in case that is where you are going), but NOT bishops in opposition to St. Peter and his successors. That was my point. They must be in union with St. Peter (and his successors).

Thank you for pointing this out. It appears we are in basic agreement then. I think the only distinction between your paradigm as a Latin and my paradigm as an Oriental is that you seem to place immediate trust in the Pope first, and only second to your bishop. On the other hand, Orientals (and Easterns) generally place immediate trust in our bishop first, and only second to the head bishop. The two paradigms might seem at odds in general conversation, but a deeper investigation will often (not always - if the debates between Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine advocates are any obvious indication) reveal that the two groups initially thought to have opposing paradigms are actually saying the same thing. Now, while I have no issue with approaching the matter from different angles, I will say that I find it unnerving and problematic that Latin Catholics seem to often and automatically assume that when bishops are mentioned in relation to the Pope, it is ONLY the Pope who could possibly be a standard of orthodoxy. That is the impression your prior and immediate comments convey (you wrote “but NOT bishops in opposition to Peter”). What could possibly cause you to automatically make an assumption that I (or any non-Latin) making such a statement would be referring to heterodox bishops? Either you have a very low opinion of non-Latin Christians, or you have a very low opinion of the divinely instituted episcopate. If neither of these is your intent, please explain why you automatically made that assumption?

No I didn’t. I usually don’t pay attention to that sort of thing.

Aw. Shucks. I was hoping that would settle the matter once and for all.

You also said:

your statements, . . . . are actually far off from Catholic orthodoxy

Which one(s)? I assume you do not mean my quote from the Catechism that said that the Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops in UNION with him.

The Catechism is not your statement, but the Catechism’s (which itself does not support a one-sided Pope alone paradigm). Your statement to which I was referring was “I will fail to state that. I think if anything it is the other way around.,” after I had pointed out (after agreeing with LivingWordUnity) that “the Pope holds the keys only as a member of the Church and in communion with his brother bishops in the College. Apart from those conditions, he does not.” The Pope’s necessary consent and the concurrent consensus with his orthodox brother bishops are two sides to the same coin. BOTH are necessary according to the divine constitution of the Church.

This statement from you is also not in line with orthodox Catholic ecclesiology: “That is WHY the Magisterium through the holder of the keys, can teach with such authority.” It is clear from V2 that the bishops hold their teaching authority in and of themselves, not “through” the Pope… They are authentic teachers and vicars of Christ, not vicars of the Pope. They must necessarily exercise their authority in communion with the head, just as the head must exercise his authority in communion with them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

Ok, I see what you mean, perhaps Marduk needs to give more details concerning this statement in order to rectify any misunderstandings. If I can venture to say that perhaps what Marduk is trying to say is that although Peter received the keys, which he admits to LivingWordUnity is used by Peter in a particular manner, the usage of the keys was not in use until the Church was established.

Brother Gary and I definitely disagree on this point. He attaches a temporal meaning to the term “first,” whereas I attach a theological meaning to it (i.e., referring to primacy). But, as mentioned to him, this is not really essential to our disagreement. Our disagreement rests on his idea that ONLY Peter, or the Popes, possess the keys.

So, Peter could not have used the power of the keys “first” prior to this, hence, Marduk’s comment, i.e., the power of the keys could only be used in tandem with the other apostles or simultaneously with the others when the Church was established). I think this is what Marduk meant, but that being said, i.e., Peter did receive the keys “first” or rather he was the one Jesus had chosen to spiritually hand over the keys (keybearer), thereby signifying something of great import connected to Peter that no other apostle could claim.

This is more in line with my intent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

In my opinion this is hair splitting, the blessing, gift given in Matthew and to Peter alone, is blessed by God who blesses nothing but His own gifts. Its no different than the Blessing given to Paul headed to Damascus. Everything Paul accomplished was not fully manifested at the moment, as least in time as we know it.

This is not the focus of our disagreement (and as far as I’m concerned, this point is not essential), but I will entertain a discussion on the matter with you. First, an accusation of “hair splitting,” with nothing to back it up, is not a very cogent argument. I’m not sure what the St. Paul analogy is supposed to accomplish. St. Paul did not receive any teaching authority or any charism until he was later baptized. St. Paul did not recieve anything but a personal remonstrance from God himself on the road to Damascus.

Not sure what your saying, the reality is there is little we disagree on here. One is above for certain and your thinking is a novelty there.

No Church Father (down through the Middle Ages) distinguished the keys from the power of the keys. So Sacred Tradition understands that when the power to bind and loose were given to all the Apostles (including Peter) in the upper room, all were given the keys. No one ever assumed that the keys were given to Peter ALONE - though there are Catholics and SSPX today who do. So it is the idea that the Apostles got the power, but not the keys, that is the novelty. Pope St. Leo taught explicitly that Peter shared the keys with the Apostles, since this was Christ’s own intention. Your claim, that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys, is unknown in the history of the undivided Church.

Your assuming here as I am not suggesting power at all. I’m talking about the gift of the teaching authority of the Church. I posted it above which is self manifested biblically and historically and yes with all the apostles as in Matthew later and Acts. Also binding and losing is enacted by Paul. Veto of like authority is read with Paul and Peter. I disagree with you understanding of the OP verse.

This opinion also flies in the face of the Tradition of the Church, even the Latin Church. As explained by the old CE article, the 3 powers of the keys - government, sacramental power, teaching authority - are intimately connected and cannot be separated. Here, you claim the teaching authority is strangely separate, in order to support the equally strange notion that the ONLY the Pope possesses the keys. So would it be correct to assume that since you attach teaching authority to keys, and only the Pope possesses the keys (and no other bishop), then only the Pope has teaching authority in the Church, and all other bishops are merely his vicars as far as teaching authority is concerned?

I believe its established we disagree here and again on the literal understanding of the verse. You cannot argue your point for several reasons. One is that you already agree the Church was divinely established on Peters Faith and Person.

Hence, I WILL give you the keys, not I GIVE you the keys right now because of your confession. It doesn’t make sense for the Master to hand over the keys when He is still there to directly exercise authority. In any case, this is not essential to our disagreement. Our disagreement rests purely on the unpatristic claim that ONLY St. Peter possesses the keys.

When was he appointed this? In Matthew 16:18 and literally.

That does not makes sense. If the role of Peter was to be the primatial candidate THROUGH whom the keys would be given to the other Apostles, then it should logically happen at the time the keys were actually given to the other Apostles.

Its not I’ll tell you I’m gonna bless you and then bless you later.

So when Christ told the Apostles, “I WILL send the comforter,” that means He gave them the Holy Spirit during that time when he made the speech? Sorry, it just does not make sense. If Jesus states He WILL do something, it is plainly evident he is speaking of some future event, not an immediate event. I don’t know what exegetical principle justifies such a pick-and-choose interpretative manipulation of the biblical text.

How you arrive at that is beyond my imagination.

Well, Jesus stated “i WILL build the Church…I WILL give you the keys.” Are you claiming Jesus established the Church right at that time? If not, how can you claim that Jesus gave him the keys at that time?

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Your back on semantics as we know there is no “alone” But there is "alone’ in Matthew 16:18

Indeed, High Petrine advocates add “sola papa” to “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” among the sola errors we reject.

Ok so you have a low petrine view and all those who favor high and absolute could sweep aside your thinking and dismiss as such. This seems to be a danger to you, which assumes your right which is rhetoric of a low petrine view.

No problem. As I’ve always admitted, the High Petrine view, being the MIDDLE ground, will naturally share elements of the other two paradigms, but also differences. High Petrine advocates believe, along with Low Petrine advocates, that the keys are possessed by all the Apostles and their successors. What distinguishes us from the LP advocates is that we admit the primacy (in a real sense, not some merely honorific sense) of one among those who hold the keys. And while HPadvocates will share with the AP advocates a recognition of a real primacy based on possession of the keys (not some imaginary one that will disappear at the whim of the majority), what distinguishes us from them is that we believe the keys are also possessed by the other Apostles/bishops.

“It was not given first to Peter. It was given to all the Apostles together when the Church was established.”

Then neither was the Church divinely established on the person/faith in Matthew 16:18. It cannot be both ways. And for sure divinely established in Matthew 16:18 is the historic teaching.

I don’t attach temporal restrictions to the Lord’s power and authority. I understand “first” according to the order of primacy, not according to time.

Did you read this?
newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
“The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter,”

Let’s not excise certain portions to suit our opinions. That quote you gave has a specific context. it is referring to the idea of restricting the “keys” to the power of the Sacrament of penance, and hence that all priests (not just bishops) have the keys. The Tradition of the Church has always been that the Apostles and bishops have the keys, with Peter (and the Popes) possessing it in a unique way, not that Peter or the Pope ALONE possesses the keys That is evident from the article. The distinction of the past and present only lies in a developed understanding that “keys” also refers to the government of the Church, not just the sacredotal power. There is nothing in the article that suggests your position that ONLY Peter or the Pope possesses the keys. To repeat, at most the article admits that Peter or the Pope possesses the keys in a special way, not that Peter or the Pope ALONE possesses the keys.

Really, though, your interpretation of the article is fantastic. We have a Council admitted by Latins to be Ecumenical (which I quoted earlier) asserting that the bishops and the Church were given the keys, and do you expect us to believe that this article has the audactiy to set itself against a Council of the Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

Ok, I see what you mean, perhaps Marduk needs to give more details concerning this statement in order to rectify any misunderstandings. If I can venture to say that perhaps what Marduk is trying to say is that although Peter received the keys, which he admits to LivingWordUnity is used by Peter in a particular manner, the usage of the keys was not in use until the Church was established.

Brother Gary and I definitely disagree on this point. He attaches a temporal meaning to the term “first,” whereas I attach a theological meaning to it (i.e., referring to primacy). But, as mentioned to him, this is not really essential to our disagreement. Our disagreement rests on his idea that ONLY Peter, or the Popes, possess the keys.

So, Peter could not have used the power of the keys “first” prior to this, hence, Marduk’s comment, i.e., the power of the keys could only be used in tandem with the other apostles or simultaneously with the others when the Church was established). I think this is what Marduk meant, but that being said, i.e., Peter did receive the keys “first” or rather he was the one Jesus had chosen to spiritually hand over the keys (keybearer), thereby signifying something of great import connected to Peter that no other apostle could claim.

This is more in line with my intent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

mardukm address this, you are all over the map assuming what I did not say.

“It was not given first to Peter. It was given to all the Apostles together when the Church was established.”

or

“what Marduk is trying to say is that although Peter received the keys, which he admits to LivingWordUnity is used by Peter in a particular manner”

Prove this with patristics. You keep saying, but I see nothing to support any of your claims. We talked about Leo etc. Lets talk about above. First of all is this what you believe, or the earlier thinking in the thread?

My position is clear, I further believe the Cardinals could be made as I stated.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

As stated, WHEN St. Peter received the keys is really inconsequential to me, so apart from what I have already stated, it is not important for me to discuss. I have other obligations to other members on more important topics. So if you have nothing else to offer in our debate about whether Peter alone or ALL the Apostles received the keys (and by virtue of apostolic succession, whether the Pope alone or ALL the bishops possess the keys), then I think we can end this discussion.

My only real concern has been that non-Catholics who are reading this discussion will not get the false impression that the point of view you propose is the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. I think I have sufficiently proven that (heck, I even quoted one of the Latin Ecumenical Councils, Lateran IV).

Maybe someone else will have something new to add, and I will join the discussion then.

Blessings,
Marduk

mardukm address this, you are all over the map assuming what I did not say.

“It was not given first to Peter. It was given to all the Apostles together when the Church was established.”

or

“what Marduk is trying to say is that although Peter received the keys, which he admits to LivingWordUnity is used by Peter in a particular manner”

Prove this with patristics. You keep saying, but I see nothing to support any of your claims. We talked about Leo etc. Lets talk about above. First of all is this what you believe, or the earlier thinking in the thread?

My position is clear, I further believe the Cardinals could be made as I stated.